cracker barrel shooting

Discussion in 'Conceal & Open Carry' started by kjohnson9212, Apr 18, 2012.

  1. kjohnson9212

    kjohnson9212 New Member

    34
    0
    A man in ohio shot and killed his wife and child in a cracker barrel, after she told him she was leaving him. I wonder if the outcome would have been different if there were a ccw carrier inside. Thoughts?
     

  2. Webphisher

    Webphisher Duct Tape, Alabama Chrome

    Probably not, as the amount of reaction time needed probably wouldn't have been enough to save one or both of the victims.

    Sadly this might have been a situation where more guns would have caused more deaths. Hard to say though without knowing how long between shootings, how others would have reacted, what he did next, etc.
     
  3. Happysniper1

    Happysniper1 New Member

    13,460
    6
    Hello, KJohnson9212, and WELCOME to the Forum!

    Please do an introductory *Hi There* in the Introductions Section, so that other Members can get to know you better, and welcome you properly.

    Thank you.
     
  4. I live in the Cleveland area where this happened and it is a sad story indeed. In my CC class we went over a scenario similar to this, and technically - unless you are directly threatened, and it's matter of life and death, it would be my duty to find an alternative method of escape and not fire upon the gunman. It's a decision you only have a few precious moments to make.
     
  5. Whaaaaaaat???!!!!!!!:confused::confused:

    My personal duty would be go towards the gunfire and stop the threat on innocent lives. By doing what you suggested is how mass shootings occur. I would rather risk my own life armed or not by charging a gunman in a similar scenerio.
     
  6. This is from the Ohio conceal carry laws handbook:

    "Condition 3: Duty to Retreat
    A defendant must show that he did not have a duty to retreat or avoid the danger. A person must retreat or avoid danger by leaving or voicing his intention to leave and ending his participation in the confrontation.
    20
    If one person retreats and the other continues to fight, the person who left the confrontation may later be justified in using deadly force when he can prove all three conditions of self-defense existed. You should always try to retreat from a confrontation before using deadly force if retreating does not endanger yourself or others.
    If the person can escape danger by means such as leaving or using less than deadly force, he must use those means. If you have no means to escape
    the other person’s attack and you reasonably, honestly believe that you are about to be killed or receive serious bodily harm, you may be able to use deadly force if that is the only way for you to escape that danger."

     
  7. Self-Defense
    Depending on the specific facts of the situation, an accused person may claim that use of deadly force was justified to excuse his actions, which would otherwise be a crime. Self-defense or the defense of another is an affirmative defense that an accused may assert against a criminal charge for an assault or homicide offense.
    The term “affirmative defense” means the accused, not the prosecutor, must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he acted in self- defense or in defense of another. In other words, the defendant must prove that it is more probable than not that his use of deadly force was necessary due to the circumstances of the situation.
    Whether this affirmative defense applies to the situation or whether it will likely succeed against criminal charges depends heavily on the specific facts and circumstances of each situation. The Ohio Supreme Court has explained that a defendant must prove three conditions to establish that he acted in defense of himself or another.
    Condition 1: Defendant Is Not At Fault
    First, the defendant must prove that he was not at fault for creating the situation. The defendant cannot be the first aggressor or initiator.
    However, in proving the victim’s fault, a defendant cannot point to other unrelated situations in which the victim was the aggressor. Remember, the focus is on the specific facts of the situation at hand.
    If you escalate a confrontation by throwing the first punch, attacking, or drawing your handgun, you are the aggressor. Most likely in this situation, you cannot legitimately claim self-defense nor would you likely succeed in proving your affirmative defense.
    Condition 2: Reasonable and Honest Belief of Danger
    Second, the defendant must prove that, at the time, he had a real belief that he was in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm and that his use of deadly force was the only way to escape that danger. Bear in mind that deadly force may only be used to protect against serious bodily harm or death. The key word is “serious.”
    In deciding whether the bodily harm was serious, the judge or jury can consider how the victim attacked the defendant, any weapon the victim had, and how he used it against the defendant. Minor bruises or bumps from a scuffle probably do not meet the legal definition of “serious.” In court cases, rape has been determined to be serious bodily harm, as has being attacked with scissors. Serious bodily harm also may result from being struck with an object that can cause damage, such as a baseball bat or a wooden club.
    The defendant’s belief that he is in immediate serious danger is important. The defendant’s belief must be reasonable, not purely speculative. In deciding if the belief was reasonable and honest, the judge or jury will envision themselves standing in the defendant’s shoes and consider his physical characteristics, emotional state, mental status, and knowledge; the victim’s actions and words; and all other facts regarding the encounter. The victim must have acted in a threatening manner. Words alone, regardless of how abusive or provoking, or threats of future harm (“I’m going to kill you tomorrow”) do not justify the use of deadly force.
    Condition 3: Duty to Retreat
    A defendant must show that he did not have a duty to retreat or avoid the danger. A person must retreat or avoid danger by leaving or voicing his intention to leave and ending his participation in the confrontation.
    If one person retreats and the other continues to fight, the person who left the confrontation may later be justified in using deadly force when he can prove all three conditions of self-defense existed. You should always try to retreat from a confrontation before using deadly force if retreating does not endanger yourself or others.
    If the person can escape danger by means such as leaving or using less than deadly force, he must use those means. If you have no means to escape
the other person’s attack and you reasonably, honestly believe that you are about to be killed or receive serious bodily harm, you may be able to use deadly force if that is the only way for you to escape that danger.
     
  8. Sorry, from the highlight above I believe deadly force is wholly justified in this scenario, because someone else's life was already in danger - BG had started shooting! Once the BG starts shooting, deadly force is justified, period, no matter if BG is shooting at you or someone else.

    Tactically, if you were in the same area of the building where the shooting is taking place such that you can see it happening, take the shot if it's there because you can not make the situation worse so long as you hit the BG. If you were not in the same area of the building and did not have eyes on the BG, time to hunker down and protect the people in your area (or try to direct them outside through a safe exit), shooting only if BG comes into your domain.
     
  9. That is beyond morally wrong and if I were a Ohio resident I would ignore all of that garbage in the scenerio mentioned by the OP. Guess Ohio hasn't heard of VT, Columbine, FT Hood or any of the other mass shootings where most "retreat" like cowards.
     
  10. cutlass327

    cutlass327 New Member

    287
    0
    You gotta figure though, Ohio seems to think that you can only kill if you yourself is in immediate danger with no way to escape.

    Escaping is not cowardice.
     
  11. series11

    series11 Hail Commifornia Lifetime Supporting Member

    6,370
    44
    This is what I was basically going to say. Depends on many variables but if he cold heartedly just took his gun out and shot them then there wouldn't have been any time to react and he didn't seem like he was going after anyone else so the threat ended and in which case retreat is the best option.
     
  12. How would you know if the threat is over? In my mind if someone is killing in public the threat isn't over until the BG is either stopped, dis armed or dead himself.

    In such a case I will not retreat.
     
  13. I just looked these up to post in another thread but feel greatly that both of these apply here.

    I completely agree with both of these vids.....

    [ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW8BZ7pRt28&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/ame]

    [ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=oH3GV7EmzI4&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/ame]
     
  14. series11

    series11 Hail Commifornia Lifetime Supporting Member

    6,370
    44
    Sorry I meant that after he shot his kid and wife and he didn't keep shooting anyone else then the threat would have ended technically. If he didn't shoot anyone else running away and just sat there then I hink a jury wouldn't side with you that shooting him was needed. Personally I would like to make the last thing that went through his mine be a 230 grain slug tumbling through it. Really it depends on the entire situation of how it went down.
     
  15. I honestly dont think a jury would convict in such a case if a CCW holder shot/killed a BG in that or similar situation. I wouldnt be thinking of what a jury might think anyway. I surely wouldn't be thinking....."oh he stopped shooting, he wont shoot no one else today......i will just sit here".
     
  16. series11

    series11 Hail Commifornia Lifetime Supporting Member

    6,370
    44
    I'm from California where if you had any chance at all to leave they will crucify you if you acted after the fact. In sane states I think that the jury might be different. Depending on the situation whether to engage the target or retreat, the last thing I would do is "just sit here".
     
  17. RockoutwithmyGlockout

    RockoutwithmyGlockout New Member

    385
    0
    In Michigan you can stop any person in the act or starting to commit a felony. Including homicide. (No that doesn't mean you can play policeman) The person could/should have claimed the guy started shooting, how am I supposed to know he was just going to stop after he shot his wife?? I would feel threatened. Therefore he would have been shot.
    Laws in Ohio do seem different. Duty to retreat? Wow. I would have claimed I was in fear for my life and opened fire. No question asked. That was a horrible thing that happened. I discussed this very question to my wife. If there was a CCW holder there I don't feel it would have went down like that. Getting a clear shot with out endangering someone may have been the worst problem. (know what's beyond your target)
    Just my $0.02